I was just thinking about the convention in circles where guiltless players pass when they hit 1 or 2 add moves (providing their not weird techy ones). The convention has been around for much longer than I've been playing footbag, and the level is certainly a lot higher these days. Should the standard be raised? Could most of the top players out there start bailing to 4 add moves (pdx whirl and double downs for instance) - I mean obviously they could do a degree, but could they hit runs with their hardest moves "bailed" to 4s? Would the 3 adds that get cut out be missed? Should the convention continue, or should it be fine for people like Penske or Vasek to hit clippers or mirages in the middle of their runs if they like. I mean I'm sure nobody would call them on it these days, but should people start bailing less and go with the philosophy of "fuck adds" - I guess it's not really a question of adds, but of difficulty - should we maintain the same standard of difficulty as has been around for 10 years + or should it be raised?
Obviously this isn't an official thing, nobody can actually decide either way, we can only make personal choices and then if enough people make the same choice, they'll eventually become new conventions. What will you choose to do (or do you do) on this issue?
Passing on bails
without the occational barfly, even vasek cannot maintain consistancy well enough to hit truly long strings.
i like long strings sometimes. Short balls to the walls strings are good to, but i still like long strings
therefore i think this is a bad idea.
And plus, i for one would like to see huge moves being hit. If the player is allowed to set up the move with a butterfly (or other easy move), many more "big" moves will be hit. I distinctly remember watching a 2006 video where jorden hits some crazy move. I dont remember the move exacly (spiro diving torque or something?) anyway, he leads into it with a butterfly, and its sick
. If your convention became accepted, less of that would happen.
Oh, and i think the difficulty has gone way up, you dont win now without some really big runs.
i like long strings sometimes. Short balls to the walls strings are good to, but i still like long strings
therefore i think this is a bad idea.
And plus, i for one would like to see huge moves being hit. If the player is allowed to set up the move with a butterfly (or other easy move), many more "big" moves will be hit. I distinctly remember watching a 2006 video where jorden hits some crazy move. I dont remember the move exacly (spiro diving torque or something?) anyway, he leads into it with a butterfly, and its sick
. If your convention became accepted, less of that would happen.Oh, and i think the difficulty has gone way up, you dont win now without some really big runs.
Julien King
-
PegLegHolly
- Swashbuckler
- Posts: 2475
- Joined: 02 Aug 2006 17:43
- Location: Cleveland, OH
- Contact:
i think its all dependant on who is in the circle, what their favorite moves are, and what their bail moves are. like jeremy said, theres really no way to make it official. but ive watched some circles that actually have rules... such as a downtime circle, and i think i remember a no dex circle at worlds. so maybe since this "bail to 4 add" thing might not become official, you could still make it a rule in a fun circle you join/start.
just an idea. i cant do 4adds yet, so maybe my input is irrelivant.
just an idea. i cant do 4adds yet, so maybe my input is irrelivant.
Holly Mathews
peglegholly.com
peglegholly.com
But would it really happen less? I mean before I was guiltless I would hit stuff like phoenix or mullet and bail to a 1 or 2 add. Is it possible that this is more a mindset issue than a skill level issue? For moves ending on my right foot clipper, my easiest bail is dlo - not butterfly, osis or pdx mirage. I think the thing with bails is that they're the most automatic response, but I bet if you picked any move I can hit, and said I had to seal with a 4 instead of a 3, I could do that. No doubt my game would suffer initially, but as soon as I got into the mindset of automatically bailing to 4s, I think it would go up.Stoneman wrote:without the occational barfly, even vasek cannot maintain consistancy well enough to hit truly long strings.
i like long strings sometimes. Short balls to the walls strings are good to, but i still like long strings
therefore i think this is a bad idea.
And plus, i for one would like to see huge moves being hit. If the player is allowed to set up the move with a butterfly (or other easy move), many more "big" moves will be hit. I distinctly remember watching a 2006 video where jorden hits some crazy move. I dont remember the move exacly (spiro diving torque or something?) anyway, he leads into it with a butterfly, and its sick
Oh, and i think the difficulty has gone way up, you dont win now without some really big runs.
I'm not saying that this is the way the sport should go, I'm simply trying to raise the issue. Don't you think the level of footbag is a lot higher now than in 1996? (or even earlier, I'm not sure when passing on guilts became standard - 1992 perhaps?) - why do we have the same standard in a circle, if the level of footbag is so much higher?
I think people are more into long runs than add based play these days. That said I think it comes down to what level of level of difficulty you want in your runs. Personally I think using a generic add count is poor way to judge what is/isn't a bail. It should be pretty clear what a bail is based on who's playing, for example I think toe bails are fugly and I'll always pass after doing one, but this wouldn't apply to some of the newer players at my club who rely on them.
But hey if you can "bail" to 4 add tricks then go for it, your shred will probably improve. However, I don't think this really applies (or is beneficial) to all but a few top shredders.
But hey if you can "bail" to 4 add tricks then go for it, your shred will probably improve. However, I don't think this really applies (or is beneficial) to all but a few top shredders.
Just a thought - but perhaps the difficulty level measured from the bottom up hasn't changed - only from the top down - ie the top is higher now but the level of the bail threes (whatever they may be for the individual shredder) is still roughly the same distance up, measured from the bottom.
Was the passing at a bail meant to keep the standard of shred closer to the top possible level measured from the top - or was it designed to raise the bar by keeping it above a certain standard measured from the bottom?
I guess what I'm asking is: do you think that what is considered "easy" now encompasses a higher level of shred (from the bottom up) than it once did? Or is it simply that now that the top is higher top shredders should be sticking closer to that top level in order to push it even higher?
Was the passing at a bail meant to keep the standard of shred closer to the top possible level measured from the top - or was it designed to raise the bar by keeping it above a certain standard measured from the bottom?
I guess what I'm asking is: do you think that what is considered "easy" now encompasses a higher level of shred (from the bottom up) than it once did? Or is it simply that now that the top is higher top shredders should be sticking closer to that top level in order to push it even higher?
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
Yeah I\'m unsure about the history.
It would be great if we could avoid a discussion about adds. I think the reality is that nobody would expect anybody to pass on a deliberate hard 1 or 2 add in their runs, and no doubt if expectations on difficulty increased, that still wouldn\'t happen. At the same time, I think in most circles of guiltless players, you\'d be expected to pass if you bail to a clipper or a mirage. I don\'t think a discussion about adds is really necessary, nor is there anything about adds left to be said.
When you compare the add ratios of runs now to runs in the past, I would also say that the ratio has definitely increased dramatically. I don\'t think run length has increased by any noticeable amount.
It would be great if we could avoid a discussion about adds. I think the reality is that nobody would expect anybody to pass on a deliberate hard 1 or 2 add in their runs, and no doubt if expectations on difficulty increased, that still wouldn\'t happen. At the same time, I think in most circles of guiltless players, you\'d be expected to pass if you bail to a clipper or a mirage. I don\'t think a discussion about adds is really necessary, nor is there anything about adds left to be said.
When you compare the add ratios of runs now to runs in the past, I would also say that the ratio has definitely increased dramatically. I don\'t think run length has increased by any noticeable amount.
-
Iron Clad Ben
- Superior Precision Bionics
- Posts: 2522
- Joined: 08 Jan 2006 19:11
- Location: La Habra, CA
- Contact:
It's certainly a very common bail, especially with the older players who grew up under the influence of Lynton Stephens (the guy who hit 68 symp mirages in a row)
That's a great example of what I'm talking about though. Lynton could hit ps mirage out of any move that ended on his left foot clipper, and probably on the other side as well. For him that move was far easier than butterfly or osis. In my opinion the reason for this was mainly his mindset. He hit the move so much it became an easy bail for him. Surely that could happen with any move. BOPs aren't actually that much easier, it's just a paradigm, and one that perhaps should be smashed these days. I bet if people took those moves out of their games, they'd find new bails which they'd grow to rely on and once they did, their games would be just as strong, except they wouldn't hit bops any more.
That's a great example of what I'm talking about though. Lynton could hit ps mirage out of any move that ended on his left foot clipper, and probably on the other side as well. For him that move was far easier than butterfly or osis. In my opinion the reason for this was mainly his mindset. He hit the move so much it became an easy bail for him. Surely that could happen with any move. BOPs aren't actually that much easier, it's just a paradigm, and one that perhaps should be smashed these days. I bet if people took those moves out of their games, they'd find new bails which they'd grow to rely on and once they did, their games would be just as strong, except they wouldn't hit bops any more.
I don't care what any of ya'll do, I love my osii and spinning clippers.
The situations where any of this passing on bails business can take place is pretty much limited to high profile circles at high profile tournaments; try telling them to pass the bag when you think their tricks are too easy.
Personally, I don't continue a string if I accidentally hit a 2. Sometimes I'll lose control, kick a bit and start over, so long as I haven't dropped the bag I don't care, it's mine!! Obviously the situation is different at tournaments, but most people know what to do in a given situation. There is no way anyone can attempt to make people pass on bops or any other move they 'consider' a bail.
Raise the bar for yourself sure, but don't try to raise it for everyone. Heck, I've already raised my bar for string QUALITY by reducing the number of filler moves. So yeah, my strings rarely go past 20, but they're jam packed, every link counts for something.
Doesn't mean I'm going to pass on a BOP, or that passing on one will make me a better player.
It's a personal choice, it can't be moderated nor standardized. There is no farther you can take this.
Drop ---->Pass
The situations where any of this passing on bails business can take place is pretty much limited to high profile circles at high profile tournaments; try telling them to pass the bag when you think their tricks are too easy.
Personally, I don't continue a string if I accidentally hit a 2. Sometimes I'll lose control, kick a bit and start over, so long as I haven't dropped the bag I don't care, it's mine!! Obviously the situation is different at tournaments, but most people know what to do in a given situation. There is no way anyone can attempt to make people pass on bops or any other move they 'consider' a bail.
Raise the bar for yourself sure, but don't try to raise it for everyone. Heck, I've already raised my bar for string QUALITY by reducing the number of filler moves. So yeah, my strings rarely go past 20, but they're jam packed, every link counts for something.
Doesn't mean I'm going to pass on a BOP, or that passing on one will make me a better player.
It's a personal choice, it can't be moderated nor standardized. There is no farther you can take this.
Drop ---->Pass
James McCullough
Then everything is fine. Guiltlessness arose out of a desire to keep people from hogging the bag and "shredding" for minutes at a time. If the run length today is about the same, and the difficulty is higher, then people are still playing without guilt.Jeremy wrote: I don\'t think run length has increased by any noticeable amount.
Keep in mind ive never been to a tournament, therefore making me a noob.
shouldnt this all come from within? Like, if move x is a bail for you, and you hit it, pass the bag? I know its alot to ask of some people, but still. I feel like your desire to hit bailless runs has to come from you, because no one else can tell what your bail moves are.
and maybee forcing someone not to hit certain moves would funnel thier game into certain places, and kill their variety?
shouldnt this all come from within? Like, if move x is a bail for you, and you hit it, pass the bag? I know its alot to ask of some people, but still. I feel like your desire to hit bailless runs has to come from you, because no one else can tell what your bail moves are.
and maybee forcing someone not to hit certain moves would funnel thier game into certain places, and kill their variety?
Julien King
i think that the mentality of the sport has progressed to the point where BOP is understood to mean different things to different players.
personally i don't like the term BOP & instead focus on what it means to be genuine.
genuine to me means unique. a butterfly is unique. a paradox mirage is unique. an osis is unique.
800 butterflies are not unique. string variety & complexity over time i think are far more important than trying to restrict the usage of specific tricks. rather, players should be looking at how they can restore the value to these tricks that they have lost in the eyes of the community.
i'll cite an example from the circle comp video ( which, coincidentally, is a video that smashes any previous conceptions that general string length at the professional level has not been growing longer ), in the semis grp with penske & lon.
penske hits a really long string, 30-50 contacts, and one little combo in there is [ osis > pdx whirl rpt ]. both of those moves would be considered bails by some of the previous posters, but his execution of those tricks was very smooth & stylish, fitting in very well in the context of his lengthy string. they were also unique to the rest of the string, giving them a genuine quality.
should we ban ripwalks from tourney play? or can players use ripwalk as a creative addition to their game?
personally i don't like the term BOP & instead focus on what it means to be genuine.
genuine to me means unique. a butterfly is unique. a paradox mirage is unique. an osis is unique.
800 butterflies are not unique. string variety & complexity over time i think are far more important than trying to restrict the usage of specific tricks. rather, players should be looking at how they can restore the value to these tricks that they have lost in the eyes of the community.
i'll cite an example from the circle comp video ( which, coincidentally, is a video that smashes any previous conceptions that general string length at the professional level has not been growing longer ), in the semis grp with penske & lon.
penske hits a really long string, 30-50 contacts, and one little combo in there is [ osis > pdx whirl rpt ]. both of those moves would be considered bails by some of the previous posters, but his execution of those tricks was very smooth & stylish, fitting in very well in the context of his lengthy string. they were also unique to the rest of the string, giving them a genuine quality.
should we ban ripwalks from tourney play? or can players use ripwalk as a creative addition to their game?
greg raymond, kingston
FB: Rocker Holliday
"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey
FB: Rocker Holliday
"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey
Nobody's talking about banning moves. Plenty of players at tournaments and not at tournaments hit 2 add moves in runs. I would be pretty confident that even the best players in the world hit 2 add moves in runs occasionally. There are appropriate times for any move.
There seems to be more confusion on reality in this topic, than at creationist conference.
There seems to be more confusion on reality in this topic, than at creationist conference.
-
james_dean
- space cowboy
- Posts: 2268
- Joined: 26 Oct 2004 23:11
- Location: Bendigo, Vic, Australia
Jeremy wasn't talking about "unique" nor did he ever talk about re-defining the term "genuine", he was talking about the way in which what poeple used to consider to be a high milestone/measure - being able to shred guiltless - is now not so high. From there it seems various poeple have taken it in all different directions he probably didn't intend.
But I've always felt there's more to guiltlessness than that - to me its also the sense that your cheating yourself by relying on the same old moves and links and not expanding your game (presuming you want to push yourself and not just tread water).
For top players (who were the original subject of the thread) this has the added aspect of pushing the sport as a whole. Originally guiltless would have helped that happen by pushing top players to use harder moves and links - now its gone way beyond being able to do that for those top players. So I guess you might say that these days guiltlessness is only about the hogging.
I thought that was a good point - and a big part of the guilt of dropping below the guiltless standard comes from the hogging aspect -Guiltlessness arose out of a desire to keep people from hogging the bag and "shredding" for minutes at a time. If the run length today is about the same, and the difficulty is higher, then people are still playing without guilt.
But I've always felt there's more to guiltlessness than that - to me its also the sense that your cheating yourself by relying on the same old moves and links and not expanding your game (presuming you want to push yourself and not just tread water).
For top players (who were the original subject of the thread) this has the added aspect of pushing the sport as a whole. Originally guiltless would have helped that happen by pushing top players to use harder moves and links - now its gone way beyond being able to do that for those top players. So I guess you might say that these days guiltlessness is only about the hogging.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
Thanks Dyalan. I had started to think that this was some kind of Halloween conspiracy, and that modified had been invaded by scarecrows.
My initial point was fairly clear I thought, and I'd like to get back into a discussion about it. Let's ignore adds, since people are incapable of understanding what they actually are, and dogmatically oppose any discussion involving adds. I feel these people would agree with my point if they could actually spend some time thinking. I asked questions to begin with, but let me state it as if it's my opinion (I'm not sure if that's actually true yet).
"Guiltless" is a completely arbitrary term. There is no big barrier between guiltless and non guiltless moves. Some are certainly harder than other, but the distinction is fairly blurred. There are many moves either side of the line that probably belong on the other side.
Guiltless is a fuzzy arbitrary term that has been the expected standard of difficulty for over 10 years now. Yes there are plenty of people not yet at that standard, or who don't want to be at that standard, but I'm really only focusing on mainstream freestyle footbag.
Given that it's an arbitrary and decade old standard, freestyle footbag should increase that standard to something higher. I don't mean players should aim higher, because I'm sure they do, but players in a serious shred circle should be expected to pass on harder moves than what they currently do.
Footbag has improved so much in the last 10 years, so why hasn't this standard gone up?
Hitting superfly>toe stall is not considered a real seal. We should increase the standard so that people can't say that they have properly sealed a move unless they can hit more difficult moves than what they are currently expected to hit.
Shred 30 should count only moves of a higher difficulty as unique.
We should abandon guiltless, and move higher - not individually, but as a community.
--
I'm not sure if that's my opinion or not, but that's the argument I wanted people to discuss.
My initial point was fairly clear I thought, and I'd like to get back into a discussion about it. Let's ignore adds, since people are incapable of understanding what they actually are, and dogmatically oppose any discussion involving adds. I feel these people would agree with my point if they could actually spend some time thinking. I asked questions to begin with, but let me state it as if it's my opinion (I'm not sure if that's actually true yet).
"Guiltless" is a completely arbitrary term. There is no big barrier between guiltless and non guiltless moves. Some are certainly harder than other, but the distinction is fairly blurred. There are many moves either side of the line that probably belong on the other side.
Guiltless is a fuzzy arbitrary term that has been the expected standard of difficulty for over 10 years now. Yes there are plenty of people not yet at that standard, or who don't want to be at that standard, but I'm really only focusing on mainstream freestyle footbag.
Given that it's an arbitrary and decade old standard, freestyle footbag should increase that standard to something higher. I don't mean players should aim higher, because I'm sure they do, but players in a serious shred circle should be expected to pass on harder moves than what they currently do.
Footbag has improved so much in the last 10 years, so why hasn't this standard gone up?
Hitting superfly>toe stall is not considered a real seal. We should increase the standard so that people can't say that they have properly sealed a move unless they can hit more difficult moves than what they are currently expected to hit.
Shred 30 should count only moves of a higher difficulty as unique.
We should abandon guiltless, and move higher - not individually, but as a community.
--
I'm not sure if that's my opinion or not, but that's the argument I wanted people to discuss.
quick replies to previous posts:
my apologies, i did diverge on a tangent from the OP. i wasn't attempting to redefine Genuine, & should have rephrased to unique from the outset to avoid confusion.
i do think there is validity to the overuse & reliance on certain tricks. i wasn't saying that breaking from being unique should be seen as taboo or restricted, but a player should be aware of when they are repeatedly using tricks that are below their playing level in order to draw out their string. ie. BOPs.
back on track:
in order to set a new professional standard in relation to difficulty, new terminology must be created.
not all tripless strings are created equal, so a simple increase in standards using current terminology is impossible.
does this mean we are looking to extend the BOP definition & retain the convention of naming specific tricks which are inherently easier?
or perhaps a new definition carrying the essence of BOP, but more flexible to be relative to the skill of the player involved. this would allow the element to influence players of all skill levels & would provide for the strongest players in a circle bailing on moves that other players would not.
shred 30 is gone next year, no? i thought the add based scoring was debunked. i agree with jeremy about sealing.
my apologies, i did diverge on a tangent from the OP. i wasn't attempting to redefine Genuine, & should have rephrased to unique from the outset to avoid confusion.
i do think there is validity to the overuse & reliance on certain tricks. i wasn't saying that breaking from being unique should be seen as taboo or restricted, but a player should be aware of when they are repeatedly using tricks that are below their playing level in order to draw out their string. ie. BOPs.
back on track:
in order to set a new professional standard in relation to difficulty, new terminology must be created.
not all tripless strings are created equal, so a simple increase in standards using current terminology is impossible.
does this mean we are looking to extend the BOP definition & retain the convention of naming specific tricks which are inherently easier?
or perhaps a new definition carrying the essence of BOP, but more flexible to be relative to the skill of the player involved. this would allow the element to influence players of all skill levels & would provide for the strongest players in a circle bailing on moves that other players would not.
shred 30 is gone next year, no? i thought the add based scoring was debunked. i agree with jeremy about sealing.
greg raymond, kingston
FB: Rocker Holliday
"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey
FB: Rocker Holliday
"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey